The Boston Housing Authority Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for Its Public Housing Program Units
We audited the Boston Housing Authority’s public housing program to determine whether the physical condition of the Authority’s program units complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and the Authority’s requirements. The audit was initiated based on our assessment of risks associated with public housing agencies’ program units and recent media attention and public concern about the condition of subsidized…
February 25, 2025
Report
#2025-CH-1001
The Boston Housing Authority Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements for Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units
We audited the Boston Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. We initiated this audit based upon our assessment of risks associated with public housing agencies' HCV Program units, as well as recent media attention and public concern about the conditions of subsidized housing properties. Our objective was to determine whether the physical conditions of the Authority’s HCV units complied with both the U.S. Department…
August 23, 2024
Report
#2024-CH-1004
The Housing Authority of the City of Springfield, MA, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement and Contract Administration Requirements
We audited the Springfield Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund programs because the Authority ranked fifth highest on our risk assessment of Massachusetts public housing agencies and is the third largest in the State. In addition, we had not audited the Authority in more than 10 years. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority complied with procurement and contract administration…
March 19, 2020
Report
#2020-BO-1002
Alexander County Housing Authority 's improper usage of HUD subsidized Asset Management Project funds
The OIG investigation focused on the Cairo, IL, based Alexander County Housing Authority's (ACHA) improper usage of HUD subsidized Asset Management Project (AMP) funds with prosecutorial consideration being given to 18 USC 666 (Theft, Intentional Misapplication of Funds), 18 USC 1001, (False Statements) and 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy). These funds (also referred to as operating funds and low rent housing project funds) and Capital funds are governed…
June 05, 2019
Investigation summary
The Housing Authority of the City of North Chicago, North Chicago, IL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of North Chicago’s Housing Choice Voucher Program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction and the activities included in our 2018 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority appropriately managed its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own…
December 20, 2018
Report
#2019-CH-1001
The Housing Authority of the County of Lake, Grayslake, IL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Lake, IL’s Housing Choice Voucher Program based on the activities included in our 2018 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority appropriately managed its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own…
September 25, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1007
The Menard County Housing Authority, Petersburg, IL, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Menard County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements regarding the administration of its…
September 28, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1007
Majestic Management, LLC, St. Louis, MO, a Management Agent for the East St. Louis Housing Authority, Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited Majestic Management, LLC’s management agent activities for the public housing program at the East St. Louis Housing Authority. Our objective was to determine whether Majestic Management made only eligible and supported payments for payroll, complied with procurement requirements, and properly performed initial tenant certifications and annual…
September 26, 2017
Report
#2017-KC-1003
The Boston Housing Authority, Boston, MA, Housed Eligible Tenants and Correctly Calculated Voucher Subsidies
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program at the Boston Housing Authority because of the size of the program, the time that had elapsed since our last audit, and the inherent program risk. The Authority operates the second largest Housing Choice Voucher program in New England. In addition, our office had not audited any Authority program since 2010. The Housing Choice Voucher program is inherently risky as Congress…
April 05, 2017
Report
#2017-BO-1004
The Somerville Housing Authority, Somerville, MA, Did Not Always Support Its Allocation of Costs to Asset Management Projects
We audited the Somerville Housing Authority’s public housing and Public Housing Capital Fund programs as part of our fiscal year 2016 regional audit plan. We initiated our review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing had not monitored the programs in the past 5 years and we had not audited the Authority in the past 10 years. Our audit objectives were to…
August 12, 2016
Report
#2016-BO-1004
The Alton Housing Authority, Alton, IL, Improperly Phased In Flat Rents for Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited the Alton Housing Authority because it appeared to have flat rents set at a rate below 80 percent of the fair market rent in that area based on the information available in the Public and Indian Housing Information Center system. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD’s flat rent requirements.
The Authority did…
May 19, 2016
Report
#2016-KC-1004
The Cambridge Housing Authority Appropriately Handled Exception Payments
We conducted a limited review of the Cambridge Housing Authority’s Moving to Work Housing Choice Voucher Program’s use of exception payment standards. This program allows public housing authorities to use exception payment standards to set rental payments in excess of the payment standard established for an authority’s rents . The review was initiated as a result of a concern raised by a member of Congress about whether public…
September 16, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-BO-1801
The Chicago Housing Authority, Chicago, IL, Did Not Always Make Payments for Outside Legal Services in Compliance With Requirements
We conducted a review of the Chicago Housing Authority’s payments for outside legal services in conjunction with an ongoing internal audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of public housing agencies’ expenditures for outside legal services. Our review objective was to determine whether the Authority made payments for outside legal services in compliance with applicable requirements.
We found that…
April 20, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-PH-1805
The Chicago Housing Authority, Chicago, IL, Did Not Always Ensure It Complied With HUD's Requirements For Exception Payment Standards
We audited the Chicago Housing Authority’s Moving to Work Housing Choice Voucher program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a request from Congressman Aaron Schock and recent media attention regarding the Authority’s exception payment standards. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with its Moving to Work agreement, the U.S. Department of…
February 23, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1001
The Moline Housing Authority, Moline, IL, Did Not Always Follow HUD's Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Program
We audited the Moline Housing Authority’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2013 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a citizen’s complaint to our office. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always comply with HUD’s…
July 14, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1004
Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority Review of Cost Allocation and Reasonableness of Salaries
We audited the Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing, which was concerned about financial controls at the Authority. Our audit objectives were to determine whether Authority officials properly implemented financial controls over the allocation of costs, and reasonableness of salaries.
Authority officials did not design…
April 30, 2014
Report
#2014-BO-1002
The Boston Office of Public Housing Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of Environmental Reviews of Three Housing Agencies, Including Reviews Involving Recovery Act Funds
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Boston Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Boston Office’s oversight of public housing environmental reviews within its jurisdiction ensured that (1) the responsible entities performed the…
February 06, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0001
The Aurora Housing Authority, Aurora, IL, Did Not Administer Its Grant in
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Aurora Housing Authority’s Recovery Act formula grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region V’s (see footnote) jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its grant…
September 05, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1010
The Medford Housing Authority, Medford, MA, Needs To Improve Rent
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher and Federal public housing programs at the Medford Housing Authority due to a complaint received by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Our overall audit objective was to determine whether the Authority had acceptable management practices to efficiently and effectively administer its housing programs while providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing in compliance HUD requirements and…
March 21, 2012
Report
#2012-BO-1003
The East St. Louis Housing Authority Did Not Properly Manage or Report on Recovery Act Capital Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with applicable procurement requirements and properly managed its Recovery Act contracts, (2) properly drew down and expended funds for eligible activities, and (3…
March 01, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1002